Elon Musk’s obsessive quest to get Donald Trump into the White House has taken a desperate turn. On Thursday, the tech CEO tweeted to more than 20o million followers that he’s offering $100 to registered Pennsylvania voters who sign his pro-Trump petition.
If you’re a registered Pennsylvania voter, you & whoever referred you will now get $100 for signing our petition in support of free speech & right to bear arms.
Earn money for supporting something you already believe in!
This $100 deal is an expansion of a previous bargain he levied with swing state voters earlier this year, where he offered $47 to any voters located in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Nevada, Arizona, Michigan, Wisconsin, and North Carolina who’d be willing to refer a friend to the petition.
However, this $100 special offer is exclusively for Pennsylvanians.
According to the site, the goal is to get “1 million registered voters in swing states to sign in support of the Constitution, especially freedom of speech and the right to bear arms.”
The tech CEO tweeted this offer shortly after hosting his first solo political event at a Pennsylvania town hall on Friday night, in which he reportedly peddled debunked election conspiracy theories.
While this petition isn’t his only bid to flip the swing state in Trump’s favor, (last week, Musk offered to go door-to-door in Pennsylvania to petition for the former president), it’s certainly one of his stupidest ones.
This particular approach has drawbacks, for the same reason paying people to gather signatures often does: You’re incentivizing bad data, which is what you really don’t want in a get-out-the-vote operation. Paid petitioners get in trouble all the time because the signatures they collect don’t match real people, or were submitted without a voter’s knowledge. The PAC says it has some safeguards in place, and that you won’t get your $47 until both the referrer and referee are verified. But the money creates a reason for realpeople who don’t support Trump to sign up and take Musk’s cash. It’s a great way for Harris-backing undergrads at Arizona State to get beer money—it’s certainly easier than giving plasma.
It’s possible this is a genius move from a man with an evolutionarily advanced brain, in other words. But it’s also possible that Musk is simply doing the rich guy thing—and the classic rich tech guy thing—of walking into a new situation and assuming all of his ideas are important.
On Saturday, Musk will speak at a Pennsylvania megachurch with strong ties to the New Apostolic Reformation, a religious movement that believes Christians are called to take over the government.
Correction, October 19: An earlier version misstated the date of the tweet. It was tweeted on Thursday, October 17.
Elon Musk’s obsessive quest to get Donald Trump into the White House has taken a desperate turn. On Thursday, the tech CEO tweeted to more than 20o million followers that he’s offering $100 to registered Pennsylvania voters who sign his pro-Trump petition.
If you’re a registered Pennsylvania voter, you & whoever referred you will now get $100 for signing our petition in support of free speech & right to bear arms.
Earn money for supporting something you already believe in!
This $100 deal is an expansion of a previous bargain he levied with swing state voters earlier this year, where he offered $47 to any voters located in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Nevada, Arizona, Michigan, Wisconsin, and North Carolina who’d be willing to refer a friend to the petition.
However, this $100 special offer is exclusively for Pennsylvanians.
According to the site, the goal is to get “1 million registered voters in swing states to sign in support of the Constitution, especially freedom of speech and the right to bear arms.”
The tech CEO tweeted this offer shortly after hosting his first solo political event at a Pennsylvania town hall on Friday night, in which he reportedly peddled debunked election conspiracy theories.
While this petition isn’t his only bid to flip the swing state in Trump’s favor, (last week, Musk offered to go door-to-door in Pennsylvania to petition for the former president), it’s certainly one of his stupidest ones.
This particular approach has drawbacks, for the same reason paying people to gather signatures often does: You’re incentivizing bad data, which is what you really don’t want in a get-out-the-vote operation. Paid petitioners get in trouble all the time because the signatures they collect don’t match real people, or were submitted without a voter’s knowledge. The PAC says it has some safeguards in place, and that you won’t get your $47 until both the referrer and referee are verified. But the money creates a reason for realpeople who don’t support Trump to sign up and take Musk’s cash. It’s a great way for Harris-backing undergrads at Arizona State to get beer money—it’s certainly easier than giving plasma.
It’s possible this is a genius move from a man with an evolutionarily advanced brain, in other words. But it’s also possible that Musk is simply doing the rich guy thing—and the classic rich tech guy thing—of walking into a new situation and assuming all of his ideas are important.
On Saturday, Musk will speak at a Pennsylvania megachurch with strong ties to the New Apostolic Reformation, a religious movement that believes Christians are called to take over the government.
Correction, October 19: An earlier version misstated the date of the tweet. It was tweeted on Thursday, October 17.
Elon Musk’s obsessive quest to get Donald Trump into the White House has taken a desperate turn. On Thursday, the tech CEO tweeted to more than 20o million followers that he’s offering $100 to registered Pennsylvania voters who sign his pro-Trump petition.
If you’re a registered Pennsylvania voter, you & whoever referred you will now get $100 for signing our petition in support of free speech & right to bear arms.
Earn money for supporting something you already believe in!
This $100 deal is an expansion of a previous bargain he levied with swing state voters earlier this year, where he offered $47 to any voters located in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Nevada, Arizona, Michigan, Wisconsin, and North Carolina who’d be willing to refer a friend to the petition.
However, this $100 special offer is exclusively for Pennsylvanians.
According to the site, the goal is to get “1 million registered voters in swing states to sign in support of the Constitution, especially freedom of speech and the right to bear arms.”
The tech CEO tweeted this offer shortly after hosting his first solo political event at a Pennsylvania town hall on Friday night, in which he reportedly peddled debunked election conspiracy theories.
While this petition isn’t his only bid to flip the swing state in Trump’s favor, (last week, Musk offered to go door-to-door in Pennsylvania to petition for the former president), it’s certainly one of his stupidest ones.
This particular approach has drawbacks, for the same reason paying people to gather signatures often does: You’re incentivizing bad data, which is what you really don’t want in a get-out-the-vote operation. Paid petitioners get in trouble all the time because the signatures they collect don’t match real people, or were submitted without a voter’s knowledge. The PAC says it has some safeguards in place, and that you won’t get your $47 until both the referrer and referee are verified. But the money creates a reason for realpeople who don’t support Trump to sign up and take Musk’s cash. It’s a great way for Harris-backing undergrads at Arizona State to get beer money—it’s certainly easier than giving plasma.
It’s possible this is a genius move from a man with an evolutionarily advanced brain, in other words. But it’s also possible that Musk is simply doing the rich guy thing—and the classic rich tech guy thing—of walking into a new situation and assuming all of his ideas are important.
On Saturday, Musk will speak at a Pennsylvania megachurch with strong ties to the New Apostolic Reformation, a religious movement that believes Christians are called to take over the government.
Correction, October 19: An earlier version misstated the date of the tweet. It was tweeted on Thursday, October 17.
With less than a month to go until Election Day, Democrats are scrambling to persuade Black men to cast their ballots for Kamala Harris amid polls showing Donald Trump gaining momentum among Black voters. This week alone, the vice president’s campaign introduced the “Opportunity Agenda for Black Men,” a set of policy proposals that marked the Harris campaign’s most overt attempt at appealing to Black men yet.
So it landed as somewhat of a surprise, or at least a risk, that Barack Obama, ahead of his first campaign appearance for Harris last week, chose to blame sexist attitudes among Black men for any reluctance they may have in backing Harris. “Y’all know some of those brothers,” Obama said, quickly drawing backlash. “Demeaning,” is how the “Black Men for Trump Advisory Board” described it.
But it wasn’t just pro-Trump voters who found Obama’s remarks problematic. Plenty of Democrats took issue with what they saw as unfair scolding, including former Ohio state Sen. Nina Turner.
“I was disappointed that the former president would talk to Black men like that, especially given the statistics showing that Black men are the second largest voting bloc in the Democratic Party,” Turner, who is Black, told me in a phone interview. She added: “In a representative democracy, people have the right, even Black men, to vote with their conscience.”
As Turner points out, Black voters, and especially Black men, have drifted away from the Democratic Party for years now, a trend the Trump allies have tried to capitalize on through various efforts that include cognac and cigar-themed events. Placing such outsized emphasis on sexism, according to those disappointed by Obama’s remarks, is misguided, especially when Black voters remain one of the most reliable Democratic voters compared to other demographics. To Turner, the Democratic Party would be far better served by focusing on the working class.
“My party keeps talking about joy. Well, there is no joy when you can’t afford gas and food and the rent is going up.”
“My party keeps talking about joy,” said Turner, referencing the theme of the Democratic National Convention this summer. “Well, there is no joy when you can’t afford gas and food and the rent is going up. There’s no joy with 60 percent of American people saying they live paycheck to paycheck.”
Still, some welcomed Obama’s remarks as a rare willingness to call out longstanding issues of sexism among Black men in their communities, even if the delivery may have been botched. After all, Obama specifically acknowledged that Black men were far from the only racial group to hold such sexist attitudes.
“The tone was off and undeserved, but the message was there,” Andi Pringle, the executive director of Registration Nation, said. “The point he was trying to make was yes, men may have issues, but you need to get past it because what’s on the other side is worse. There is no choice here.”
To Pringle, the trend of Black men leaning more conservative than previous generations is not an anomaly but rather a symptom of deep-rooted sexism in America.
Video
Black Republicans are nothing new, of course. But does Trump’s appeal really hold up?
But while responses to Obama’s pointed speech may have been split, many agreed that Harris’ proposals—which include programs to forgive loans for small businesses, legalize marijuana, and increase access to cryptocurrency—are a step in the right direction for Black male outreach.
“I think [these proposals] are a really good sign,” said Turner. “African American men should be approached like any other demographic: With policies that help to enrich and lift their lives, make their lives better. Why? When you make Black men’s lives better, you definitely help lift the Black community.”
“In a representative democracy, people have the right, even Black men, to vote with their conscience.”
“Black men need to be encouraged, seen, and given space to have a voice. Right now, we’re all about mobilization,” said Pringle. “We don’t have time for much else.”
Such urgency is warranted considering the historic levels of support among Black conservatives supporting Trump’s return to the White House. My colleague Garrison Hayes explores this rapidly expanding movement in the following video, “I Spent a Week with Black Republicans,” and will be discussing the issue further in an upcoming episode of Reveal. Stay tuned.
Donald Trump’s recordof hypocrisy and grifting now appears to extend to his “God Bless the USA” Bible. A new report from the Associated Press reveals that nearly 120,000 copies of the former president’s $60 Bibles are printed in China, the same country he’s spent most of his political career lambasting.
Those copies, according to records obtained by the AP, were shipped in February and March, likely making a $7 million profit for Trump.
As we previously wrote, these Bibles aren’t just average publications of a holy text. They include a handwritten chorus of Lee Greenwood’s “God Bless the USA,” as well as a custom embossing “in remembrance of the day that God intervened during President Donald J. Trump’s assassination attempt,” available in special edition copies.
All of which made the potential decision to mandate Trump’s Bible in Oklahoma’s schools deeply alarming. As I wrote last week:
On Friday, the nonprofit news outlet Oklahoma Watch reported that the superintendent’s bid documents included specific standards for the Bibles set to be used in Oklahoma classrooms, standards only met by two editions.
According to the documents, the books must:
Be bound in leather or a leather-like material
Include the Pledge of Allegiance, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights
Be either the old or new version of the King James Bible
Supplier Mardel Christian & Education reportedly searched through the 2,900 versions of the Bible it carries and found that none fit the bill—but Trump’s “God Bless the USA Bible”does.
Trump’s Bible is, of course, just one of many odd business ventures he has started in this election cycle alone, including $400 golden sneakers.
Donald Trump’s recordof hypocrisy and grifting now appears to extend to his “God Bless the USA” Bible. A new report from the Associated Press reveals that nearly 120,000 copies of the former president’s $60 Bibles are printed in China, the same country he’s spent most of his political career lambasting.
Those copies, according to records obtained by the AP, were shipped in February and March, likely making a $7 million profit for Trump.
As we previously wrote, these Bibles aren’t just average publications of a holy text. They include a handwritten chorus of Lee Greenwood’s “God Bless the USA,” as well as a custom embossing “in remembrance of the day that God intervened during President Donald J. Trump’s assassination attempt,” available in special edition copies.
All of which made the potential decision to mandate Trump’s Bible in Oklahoma’s schools deeply alarming. As I wrote last week:
On Friday, the nonprofit news outlet Oklahoma Watch reported that the superintendent’s bid documents included specific standards for the Bibles set to be used in Oklahoma classrooms, standards only met by two editions.
According to the documents, the books must:
Be bound in leather or a leather-like material
Include the Pledge of Allegiance, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights
Be either the old or new version of the King James Bible
Supplier Mardel Christian & Education reportedly searched through the 2,900 versions of the Bible it carries and found that none fit the bill—but Trump’s “God Bless the USA Bible”does.
Trump’s Bible is, of course, just one of many odd business ventures he has started in this election cycle alone, including $400 golden sneakers.
In June, Oklahoma’s Trump-supporting top school official, Ryan Walters, ordered the state’s schools to teach the Bible in class—and this week, his department put in a $3 million proposal to buy 55,000 Bibles for Oklahoma schools. But out of the thousands of versions available for purchase, it seems only two holy books fit the state Department of Education’s strict criteria: one sold by Donald J. Trump, and one sold by his son Don Junior.
Surprise, surprise.
On Friday, the nonprofit news outlet Oklahoma Watch reported that the superintendent’s bid documents included specific standards for the Bibles set to be used in Oklahoma classrooms, standards only met by two editions.
According to the documents, the books must:
Be bound in leather or a leather-like material
Include the Pledge of Allegiance, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights
Be either the old or new version of the King James Bible
Supplier Mardel Christian & Education reportedly searched through the 2,900 versions of the Bible it carries and found that none fit the bill—but Trump’s “God Bless the USA Bible”does.
As we reported earlier this year, Trump began hawking the “God Bless the USA” Bible—about $60 a pop—in March, a month after he started selling his $400 sneakers and other ungodly expensive pieces of merch.
The only other book to fit the bill? The “We The People Bible,” endorsed by Donald Trump Jr., at a price of $90.
Superintendent Ryan Walters’ office stands by the criteria, telling the Hill in a statement, “There are hundreds of Bible publishers, and we expect a robust competition for this proposal.”
The move is unsurprising from Walters’ administration. Last November, theOklahoma superintendent endorsed Trump, promising that under the ex-president, “This cancer that is the teachers union will be driven out of our schools.” Walters also plans to join the GOP candidate’s reelection team, claiming he’s “excited to see [Trump] dismantle the Department of Education.”
Update, October 4: This story has been updated to credit Oklahoma Watch, which reported the Oklahoman article previously cited.
In June, Oklahoma’s Trump-supporting top school official, Ryan Walters, ordered the state’s schools to teach the Bible in class—and this week, his department put in a $3 million proposal to buy 55,000 Bibles for Oklahoma schools. But out of the thousands of versions available for purchase, it seems only two holy books fit the state Department of Education’s strict criteria: one sold by Donald J. Trump, and one sold by his son Don Junior.
Surprise, surprise.
On Friday, the nonprofit news outlet Oklahoma Watch reported that the superintendent’s bid documents included specific standards for the Bibles set to be used in Oklahoma classrooms, standards only met by two editions.
According to the documents, the books must:
Be bound in leather or a leather-like material
Include the Pledge of Allegiance, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights
Be either the old or new version of the King James Bible
Supplier Mardel Christian & Education reportedly searched through the 2,900 versions of the Bible it carries and found that none fit the bill—but Trump’s “God Bless the USA Bible”does.
As we reported earlier this year, Trump began hawking the “God Bless the USA” Bible—about $60 a pop—in March, a month after he started selling his $400 sneakers and other ungodly expensive pieces of merch.
The only other book to fit the bill? The “We The People Bible,” endorsed by Donald Trump Jr., at a price of $90.
Superintendent Ryan Walters’ office stands by the criteria, telling the Hill in a statement, “There are hundreds of Bible publishers, and we expect a robust competition for this proposal.”
The move is unsurprising from Walters’ administration. Last November, theOklahoma superintendent endorsed Trump, promising that under the ex-president, “This cancer that is the teachers union will be driven out of our schools.” Walters also plans to join the GOP candidate’s reelection team, claiming he’s “excited to see [Trump] dismantle the Department of Education.”
Update, October 4: This story has been updated to credit Oklahoma Watch, which reported the Oklahoman article previously cited.
All five men were executed within one week in five different states, aperiod political scientist Austin Sarat condemned as “the worst execution spree in three decades.”
The most high-profile execution took place on Tuesday when Missouri executed Marcellus Williams, who had maintained his innocence for decades. The execution was carried out despite the prosecutor’s office in the 1998 murder trial acknowledging that evidence had been mishandled and therefore urged for the conviction to be vacated. The execution of Miller in Alabama also received intense media attention this week over the state’s use of nitrogen gas, a method many have likened to torture.
The five executions once again thrust the issue of capital punishment, long criticized as unjust and unconstitutional, back into the public discourse, with advocates against the death penalty calling for a national reckoning. Many recalled studies that have repeatedly shown that people of color, and primarily those with intellectual disabilities, are far more likely to be given death sentences—despite little evidence that the punishment works to deter crime.
“It’s the growing perception that the death penalty system in the United States is broken in its operation.”
“The United States is in the midst of a national reconsideration of capital punishment in a way that was completely unforeseeable,” Sarat told me during a phone call this week.
“What is driving this national reconsideration? It isn’t sudden moral conversions of people who are supporters of the death penalty. It’s the growing perception that the death penalty system in the United States is broken in its operation.”
But amid the extraordinary string of executions this week, Vice President Kamala Harris has remained curiously silent on the issue of state-sanctioned violence and the death penalty. For some, the apparent silence is out of step with Harris’ deep history of opposing the death penalty, which includes her promise as San Francisco’s district attorney never to charge someone with the death penalty. She also campaigned on the promise to establish a federal ban when she first ran for president in 2019.
Yet, with the 2024 presidential election in a virtual tie—and familiar Republican attacks that she is soft on crime—Harris’ platform appears to have wiped out any mention of her stance regarding capital punishment. When reached for comment by Mother Jones, Harris’ press team did not respond.
Sarat said that any reluctance on behalf of Harris to weigh in on the issue, even with the extraordinarily high number of executions that took place this week, could reflect a change in the political climate from four years ago.
“The political landscape was different in 2020,” says Sarat. “That campaign unfolded in anticipation of and after the murder of George Floyd and the recognition of the need to address grave racial inequities.”
He added: “Abolitionists surely want Kamala Harris to speak out against the death penalty, but they want something more. They wanted her to be elected president United States so she can actually do something about the death penalty.”
Correction, September 27: This post has beenupdated to reflect more precisely Austin Sarat’s historical observation about execution sprees.
All five men were executed within one week in five different states, aperiod political scientist Austin Sarat condemned as “the worst execution spree in three decades.”
The most high-profile execution took place on Tuesday when Missouri executed Marcellus Williams, who had maintained his innocence for decades. The execution was carried out despite the prosecutor’s office in the 1998 murder trial acknowledging that evidence had been mishandled and therefore urged for the conviction to be vacated. The execution of Miller in Alabama also received intense media attention this week over the state’s use of nitrogen gas, a method many have likened to torture.
The five executions once again thrust the issue of capital punishment, long criticized as unjust and unconstitutional, back into the public discourse, with advocates against the death penalty calling for a national reckoning. Many recalled studies that have repeatedly shown that people of color, and primarily those with intellectual disabilities, are far more likely to be given death sentences—despite little evidence that the punishment works to deter crime.
“It’s the growing perception that the death penalty system in the United States is broken in its operation.”
“The United States is in the midst of a national reconsideration of capital punishment in a way that was completely unforeseeable,” Sarat told me during a phone call this week.
“What is driving this national reconsideration? It isn’t sudden moral conversions of people who are supporters of the death penalty. It’s the growing perception that the death penalty system in the United States is broken in its operation.”
But amid the extraordinary string of executions this week, Vice President Kamala Harris has remained curiously silent on the issue of state-sanctioned violence and the death penalty. For some, the apparent silence is out of step with Harris’ deep history of opposing the death penalty, which includes her promise as San Francisco’s district attorney never to charge someone with the death penalty. She also campaigned on the promise to establish a federal ban when she first ran for president in 2019.
Yet, with the 2024 presidential election in a virtual tie—and familiar Republican attacks that she is soft on crime—Harris’ platform appears to have wiped out any mention of her stance regarding capital punishment. When reached for comment by Mother Jones, Harris’ press team did not respond.
Sarat said that any reluctance on behalf of Harris to weigh in on the issue, even with the extraordinarily high number of executions that took place this week, could reflect a change in the political climate from four years ago.
“The political landscape was different in 2020,” says Sarat. “That campaign unfolded in anticipation of and after the murder of George Floyd and the recognition of the need to address grave racial inequities.”
He added: “Abolitionists surely want Kamala Harris to speak out against the death penalty, but they want something more. They wanted her to be elected president United States so she can actually do something about the death penalty.”
Correction, September 27: This post has beenupdated to reflect more precisely Austin Sarat’s historical observation about execution sprees.
On Sunday, two New York City police officers fired into a crowded Brooklyn subway station, shooting and injuring four people, including two bystanders, one of whom is a hospital employee now in critical condition after police shot him in the head during his commute.
The catalyst for this bloody confrontation: an alleged fare evasion. In other words, $2.90.
According to the NYPD, officers suspected that 37-year-old Derell Mickles had skipped a turnstile at the Sutter Avenue subway station in Brooklyn. The officers followed Mickles, resulting in a chase that ended with officers shooting him, two bystanders, and anotherofficer on duty. While police initially claimed that they had recovered a knife Mickles had used to threaten officers, officials later contradicted their own claim, prompting questions over what exactly had happened.
Asked about body camera footage on Tuesday, Mayor Eric Adams deflected, telling a reporter to “speak with the police commissioner,” before praising the officers involved in Sunday’s shooting for demonstrating a “great level of restraint.” The NYPD has since firmly defended the officers, with the police departments chief of patrol stating, “We are not perfect.”
The violent incident, inside one of the world’s busiest subway systems, has sparked outrage among New Yorkers as well as a victim’s family members, who condemned the officers’ actions as “reckless.”
And they’re far from alone. Criminal justice reform advocates are slamming what they see as an outsized response by the NYPD to something as minor and trivialas alleged fare evasion. It comes amid New York Mayor Eric Adams’ aggressive crackdown on fare evaders, a policy Adams has claimed would also help with violence that occurs on trains. Protests have sincebroken out across the city, calling for the officers involved in Sunday’s shootingto be held accountable.
I spoke with Michael Sisitzky, assistant policy director at the New York City Civil Liberties Union, to learn more about Adams’ crackdown on fare evasion, overpolicing, and lack of police transparency surrounding Sunday’s violent encounter. Our conversation has been edited for length and clarity.
This is an ongoing investigation. But there are already significant concerns over how the police handled this situation and how the mayor has responded.
This disturbing incident is sadly not surprising, given what we’ve seen from this administration. The Adams administration and NYPD have been dramatically ramping up enforcement activity, increasing their presence in the subways, increasing stops, increasing frisks, and increasing all of the hallmarks of broken windows policing. This is a predictable and inevitable consequence of this administration’s approach to a very aggressive enforcement mindset. There are so many questions about what we’ve heard from the mayor’s office from the NYPD about what exactly unfolded.
We have heard officer accounts of what happened. We’ve heard some witness accounts. The NYPD and the mayor’s office have been reviewing body camera footage. But, we have not been able to see this. We’re not getting a transparent accounting of what took place. It’s absolutely critical that we see the evidence that they’re relying on to make these assertions.
We’re being asked to take the word of a mayor whose initial tweetin response to this incident had to get community noted because it was leaving out the important context of the officer he was talking about having been shot was shot by a fellow officer. We can’t really trust their version of events when they’re not showing us the evidence of what took place in that incident.
This is a predictable and inevitable consequence of this administration’s approach to a very aggressive enforcement mindset.
Are complaints over transparency from the NYPD common?
It’s a hallmark of the NYPD. We know that they can be transparent when they choose to be and when they think it serves their interest. Folks may remember back in January of 2024 the NYPD released body camera footage within hours, within a day of the traffic stop of a city council member when they sought to use that footage to highlight their version of what took place. But they treat incidents like this very differently.
How common—or rare—are shootings like this in New York?
I don’t know that we have the full stats on how common this type of shooting is in the subway from an officer. It’s not something that I’ve seen a full accounting of, but what we have seen are increased reports of police misconduct and abuse of New Yorkers that have upticked with this administration. Civilian complaints going into the Civilian Complaint Review Board have reached alarmingly high levels. At the same time, there have also been real concerns about what the department is actually doing with complaints that are moving through the NYPD disciplinary system, where they’re just not taking those reports seriously.
When you respond to everything with an officer, you are increasing the likelihood that we’re going to see more cases where someone is subject to use of force.
Can overpolicing backfire? How do outsize police presences affect communities, particularly communities of color?
The approach that this administration has taken since day one is overpolicing.
They’ve identified police officers as the be-all, end-all, sole solution to every societal ill. Fare evasion? Send a cop after it. Homelessness? Send police to conduct sweeps. Mental health crises? Instead of sending peers and EMTs, send a cop instead.
It’s a formula that this administration seems wedded to, but it’s not improving community safety for New Yorkers. Police are primarily concerned with enforcing criminal laws, making arrests, and issuing summonses. They have an enforcement mindset, not a delivery of services or addressing root causes mindset.
So when you respond to everything with an officer, you are increasing the likelihood that we’re going to see more and more cases where someone is subject to use of force, someone is tased, someone is shot, someone is killed when they did not need to be, because you are responding to a situation with tools that are just fundamentally not a good fit for that scenario.
We see this play out largely in communities that need more investments to address the root causes of crime, poverty, homelessness, the need for increased mental health and healthcare services. Rather than making those investments, which are harder and will take more thought to accomplish, we instead default to a reliance on police officers.
In March, the NYPD announced they would send 800 officers into subways to combat fare evasion. In the same month, Gov. Kathy Hochul deployed the National Guard in response to several violent incidents that occurred a few weeks prior.Realistically, how effective are methods like this in preventing crime, and what are some of the pitfalls?
It’s brought up time and time again that if you focus on low-level crime and low-level signs of disorder, you’re mitigating the potential for it to escalate into more serious criminal activity and driving down overall crime rates as a result.
That’s been studied and debunked numerous times. New York City hit historically low crime rates as stop and frisk plummeted to historic lows and was reined in as enforcement fell, as summonses and arrest activity went down. The data is just not there to justify the approach to broken windows or quality-of-life policing.
Instead, it’s very effective at funneling more and more people into the criminal legal system, saddling people with fines that they cannot afford, making them attend court dates that they cannot afford, and giving people the potentially lifelong consequence of acquiring a criminal record which can extend to every aspect of their life. What it’s not doing is meeting community needs and making New Yorkers safer.
Eric Adams has pushed for a crackdown on fare evasion. Last month, the MTA announced that they’ll be sending summons of up to $50 to $100 to fare evaders. Did a “tough on crime” approach play into what happened over the weekend?
What happened over the weekend is an inevitable outcome of that kind of tough-on-crime approach, where the only tool that we seem to have to offer is police officers, who are going to focus on enforcement and if they’re given an aggressive mandate to enforce, are going to enforce that aggressively.
We haven’t seen the actual footage yet. We’re relying on accounts of what happened. But it’s very easy to see how a police officer pursuing someone, chasing them, is a tactic that is escalatory, as opposed to thinking of ways we can tackle issues like fare evasion without the threat of violence.
That is such a mismatch we don’t need to be constrained thinking about responding to fare evasion with just a police law enforcement tool.
We should be thinking more broadly about getting people access to the support they need to enroll in programs for New Yorkers who can’t afford to pay for fares to get to work, pay for child care, or get access to medical care. We can think about other ways that we are addressing those causes without putting armed officers in and telling them you need to make sure that you are aggressively cracking down on everyone within the system.
As this case has gained traction on social media, one of the most disturbing responses I’ve seen is how so many people justify using this level of force because Mickles was suspected of evading a $2.90 fare.It’s a narrative that oftentimes rears its head after a high-profile case of police brutality. We saw this with George Floyd, Eric Garner.
The level of force used here is so disproportionate to the alleged infraction. No one should be subject to having their life put in jeopardy because of an alleged evasion of a $2.90 cent fare, to say nothing of the fact that officers pursued him into a crowded station and onto a train.
That response is not only out of proportion to the individual’s alleged offense, but it is putting so many other people needlessly in harm’s way.
It’s deeply disturbing that the NYPD and the administration could view that level of a response as an appropriate reaction when we’re talking about something as trivial as the evasion of a $2.90 cent fare.
Since the shooting occurred, plenty of New Yorkers have started to protest the NYPD’s crackdown on fare evasion. What are your thoughts on some of these demonstrations?
People are recognizing an uptick in the targeting of their communities and an uptick in stop activity racial disparities as bad or even worse than they were at its height. There is a real sense that the NYPD is not providing a service to New Yorkers but is causing active harm In communities.
And I think that an expression that also finds a voice in the number of complaints of police misconduct going in, being on the rise, and is evident in the types of protests that we’re seeing against this incident and against other instances of police brutality and violence.
It’s important that New Yorkers be able to express their to raise their voice and express their views in protesting against policies that are causing harm in their communities rather than actually helping deliver real safety for them.
A bomb threat sentto “multiple agencies and media outlets” in Springfield, Ohio, forced the closure of the town’s City Hall on Thursday.
“City of Springfield received a bomb threat that has prompted an immediate response from local and regional law enforcement,” a statement from city officials said. “As a precautionary measure, the building has been evacuated, and authorities are currently conducting a thorough investigation.”
The evacuation comes amid racist, debunked rumors that Haitian immigrants are kidnapping and eating pets in the town. The claims started in obscure social media posts and quickly spread to prominent Republicans, including JD Vance and Donald Trump, who used the presidential debate this week to fuel the baseless conspiracy theory.
The mayor of Springfield, Ohio, has confirmed that Thursday’s bomb threats that prompted the evacuation of its City Hall and several other buildings were explicitly hostile to Haitians.
In an interview with the Washington Post, Mayor Rob Rue stated that the bomb threats “used hateful language towards immigrants and Haitians in our community.”
He added that Springfield is a “community that needs help” and called on national leaders to step up and not “hurt a community like, unfortunately, we have seen over the last couple of days.”
The viral rumors have left Haitian immigrants in the area reporting incidents ofharassment, including property damage. Many have elected to keep their children home from school; one Haitian resident told the Haitian Times that her cars were vandalized twice in the middle of the night.
“We’re all victims this morning,” she said the day following Trump’s racist remarks at the debate. “They’re attacking us in every way.”
Threat experts have long warned that Trump’s promotion of racist claims, particularly when they involve immigrants, can fuel violence. My colleague Mark Follman writes:
Immigration is a top issue for voters, and Trump’s unsubstantiated smears against migrants clearly are aimed at motivating his base. But his demagoguery is also part of a long campaign of thinly veiled incitement—one that increases the risk of political violence at the hands of Trump’s extremist supporters. For years, Trump has used this method, known to national security experts as stochastic terrorism, against an array of purported political enemies. With the help of Fox pundits, migrants have been on Trump’s list ever since he entered the 2016 presidential race
This story has been updated to reflect Mayor Rue’s comments.
A bomb threat sent to “multiple agencies and media outlets” in Springfield, Ohio, forced the closure of the town’s City Hall on Thursday.
“City of Springfield received a bomb threat that has prompted an immediate response from local and regional law enforcement,” a statement from city officials said. “As a precautionary measure, the building has been evacuated, and authorities are currently conducting a thorough investigation.”
The motive behind the threat is still under investigation. But Thursday’s evacuation comes amid racist, debunked rumors that Haitian immigrants are kidnapping and eating pets in the town. The claims started in obscure social media posts and quickly spread to prominent Republicans, including JD Vance and Donald Trump, who used the presidential debate this week to fuel the baseless conspiracy theory.
The viral rumors have left Haitian immigrants in the area reporting incidents ofharassment, including property damage. Many have elected to keep their children home from school; one Haitian resident told the Haitian Times that her cars were vandalized twice in the middle of the night.
“We’re all victims this morning,” she said the day following Trump’s racist remarks at the debate. “They’re attacking us in every way.”
Threat experts have long warned that Trump’s promotion of racist claims, particularly when they involve immigrants, can fuel violence. My colleague Mark Follman writes:
Immigration is a top issue for voters, and Trump’s unsubstantiated smears against migrants clearly are aimed at motivating his base. But his demagoguery is also part of a long campaign of thinly veiled incitement—one that increases the risk of political violence at the hands of Trump’s extremist supporters. For years, Trump has used this method, known to national security experts as stochastic terrorism, against an array of purported political enemies. With the help of Fox pundits, migrants have been on Trump’s list ever since he entered the 2016 presidential race
As my colleague David Corn put it, Donald Trump lost the first presidential debate against Kamala Harris by simply being himself: He spent the night ranting, raving, and peddling his favorite conspiracy theories and untruths.
It was a performance so on-brand for the former president that you could be forgiven for wondering if Trump had relied on an AI-generated script. Meanwhile, Harris successfully baited her opponent into garbled tangents about the size of his rallies.
Harris’ victory on Tuesday was so clear that even Fox News had to accept reality.
“Make no mistake about it: Trump had a bad night,” Brit Hume, Fox News chief political analyst, said shortly after the event. “He lost the debate repeatedly when she baited him, something I’m sure his advisors had begged him not to do. And we heard so many of the old grievances that we’ve long thought that Trump had learned were not winners politically.”
Hume wasn’t alone. As my colleague Noah Lanard reported, several right-wing bloggers and online personalities admitted that Trump had bombed, even after their man pushed some of their worst pieces of misinformation at the debate stage. Lanard writes:
Rod Dreher, a right-wing blogger who moved from the United States to Hungary largely due to his affinity for Orban and the direction he is taking the country, accepted that Trump had lost.
As Trump flailed during his Orban tangent, Harris looked on with a mix of amusement and seemingly genuine confusion. Across the stage was an angry and unhinged old man walking into every trap she laid for him when he was not stepping into ones of his own making.
Denying this was pointless for his fans. So, they turned to a tactic that losers have likely embraced for as long as debating has existed: From Catturd on down they blamed the moderators.
In the aftermath of his disappointing performance, Trump has blamed ABC’s moderators for their “rigged” job, while simultaneously, insisting that it was his “best debate ever.”
“It was three to one. It was a rigged deal, as I assumed it would be,” Trump said, according to the Hill. He added that he’s “not inclined” to participate in another debate before Election Day.
I’m no legal expert, but I’ve got a sneaky suspicion that if you’ve just asked a judge to reconsider the verdict in your defamation case, you probably shouldn’t repeat similarly defamatory statements during a press conference later that same day.
But, of course, that’s precisely what Donald Trump did.
After appearing in a federal appeals court to fight his verdict in the E. Jean Carroll defamation case, Donald Trump proceeded to bash Carroll and several other women who’ve accused him of sexual assault for nearly an hour during a press conference on Friday.
Last year, the ex-president was ordered to pay Carroll $5 million after a civil court found him liable for sexually assaulting her in the mid-1990s and then subsequently defaming her once she told the public her story.
Earlier this year, Trump was found liableyet again in a separate civil lawsuit for additional remarks he’d made in 2019 when she first came forward, including the assertion that she “wasn’t his type”—a venomous insult that made a reappearance during today’s press conference.
“She would not have been the chosen one,” said Trump, referencing an unnamed woman who he allegedly assaulted in the ’70s on an airplane—one of many sexual assault allegations that Trump dredged up during this conference.
But this wasn’t the only suchremark Trump made that afternoon. He also took aim at Carroll directly, claiming again that he didn’t know who she was and accusing her of stealing her story from a Law & Order episode.
He also claimed to have never met her, called a picture of them together potentially “AI-generated,” and then later admitted that they did meet but claimed that meeting didn’t count.
He also, for whatever reason, insulted his own lawyers, who were standing right behind him, saying, “I’m disappointed in my legal talent, to be honest with you.”
The entire rant was chaotic, even by Trump’s standards. It will be interesting to see how it impacts the GOP presidential nominee’s chances at an appeal in the coming weeks—according to a report before his rambling speech today, the judge was already “skeptical.”
I’m no legal expert, but I’ve got a sneaky suspicion that if you’ve just asked a judge to reconsider the verdict in your defamation case, you probably shouldn’t repeat similarly defamatory statements during a press conference later that same day.
But, of course, that’s precisely what Donald Trump did.
After appearing in a federal appeals court to fight his verdict in the E. Jean Carroll defamation case, Donald Trump proceeded to bash Carroll and several other women who’ve accused him of sexual assault for nearly an hour during a press conference on Friday.
Last year, the ex-president was ordered to pay Carroll $5 million after a civil court found him liable for sexually assaulting her in the mid-1990s and then subsequently defaming her once she told the public her story.
Earlier this year, Trump was found liableyet again in a separate civil lawsuit for additional remarks he’d made in 2019 when she first came forward, including the assertion that she “wasn’t his type”—a venomous insult that made a reappearance during today’s press conference.
“She would not have been the chosen one,” said Trump, referencing an unnamed woman who he allegedly assaulted in the ’70s on an airplane—one of many sexual assault allegations that Trump dredged up during this conference.
But this wasn’t the only suchremark Trump made that afternoon. He also took aim at Carroll directly, claiming again that he didn’t know who she was and accusing her of stealing her story from a Law & Order episode.
He also claimed to have never met her, called a picture of them together potentially “AI-generated,” and then later admitted that they did meet but claimed that meeting didn’t count.
He also, for whatever reason, insulted his own lawyers, who were standing right behind him, saying, “I’m disappointed in my legal talent, to be honest with you.”
The entire rant was chaotic, even by Trump’s standards. It will be interesting to see how it impacts the GOP presidential nominee’s chances at an appeal in the coming weeks—according to a report before his rambling speech today, the judge was already “skeptical.”
On Thursday, the Biden administration announced that—after months of negotiations—it had finally struck a deal with prescription drug companies to slash the prices of some of Medicare’s most expensive medications, prescriptions for which currently cost the federal government some $56 billion last year.
“It’s a relief for the millions of seniors that take these drugs to treat everything from heart failure, blood clots, diabetes, arthritis, Crohn’s disease, and more—and it’s a relief for American taxpayers,” President Biden said in a statement.
“Kamala and I both get it. We know it isn’t just about health care,” he added, appearing alongside Vice President Kamala Harris for their first joint event since she gained the Democratic presidential nomination. “It’s about your dignity.”
Starting in 2026, ten prescriptions for ailments ranging from diabetes to blood cancer will have their costs drastically lowered—by up to 79 percent of their manufacturers’ list price. These cuts will save taxpayers $6 billion and seniors and beneficiaries alone more than $1.5 billion, according to the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
The action was reportedly made possible by the 2022 passage of the Inflation Reduction Act, which opened the door for changes to Medicare with the aim of “expanding benefits, lowering drug costs, and improving sustainability.” The deal is only phase one of the administration’s plan to make Medicare more affordable: The Department of Health and Human Services will be allowed to select another set of 15 drugs for price negotiations next year.
It’s been a rough week for JD Vance. While half the internet was laughing at the unfounded rumor about his relationship with a couch, the vice presidential nominee was also getting digitally dragged for misogynistic comments he made in a 2021 Fox News appearance.
Earlier this week, celebrities, Swifties, and politicians on both sides of the aisle were calling out JD Vance for claiming Vice President Kamala Harris was one of a “bunch of childless cat ladies who are miserable at their own lives and the choices that they’ve made and so they want to make the rest of the country miserable too.”
“I truly can’t believe this is coming from a potential VP of The United States,” actress Jennifer Aniston reportedly wrote in an Instagram story on Wednesday, in which she also pointed to Vance’s hypocritical stance on reproductive rights. “Mr. Vance, I pray that your daughter is fortunate enough to bear children of her own one day. I hope she will not need to turn to IVF as a second option. Because you are trying to take that away from her, too.” Aniston, who has been open about her own experiences with in vitro fertilization, was potentially referencing how Vance, alongside many other Republicans, voted against a bill to protect the procedure in February.
Late this week, the Ohio senator dug himself an even deeper hole when he apologized to cats and seemed to double down on his comments about women.
“Obviously, it was a sarcastic comment,” said Vance during an appearance on TheMegyn Kelly Show, “I’ve got nothing against cats.” He added: “People are focusing so much on the sarcasm and not on the substance of what I actually said. And the substance of what I said, I’m sorry, it’s true.”
JD Vance responds to the backlash to his “childless cat ladies” comment by apologizing to cats and then doubling down on attacking women: “I’m sorry, it’s true” pic.twitter.com/JZjqZJOp5y
Then another 2021 clip resurfaced of him blaming all his bad press on journalists who’re mostly “childless adults.” As Mother Jones‘sDavid Corn reported earlier this week:
When Vance dissed Harris as a “childless cat lady,” he was not speaking off the cuff. This runs deep for him. The right, as he sees it, has been outmaneuvered by the left on various fronts, and its only target of opportunity is the government.
To win that battle, conservatives must target Democrats as foes of the family.
Meanwhile, people have continued to mock Trump’s VP pick online with a nearly endless stream of memes referencing accomplished “cat ladies” with no children. We grabbed a few of our favorites for your own amusement:
In more dystopian news, Donald Trump just implied that if he’s elected in November, there will be no need to vote in the future.
Trump: “Four more years, it’ll be fixed, it’ll be fine, you won’t have to vote anymore.”
On Friday night at the conservative political nonprofit Turning Points Action’s “Believer Summit” in Florida, the former president told his Christian supporters that if they cast their ballot for him in the upcoming presidential election, they wouldn’t have to vote anymore.
Trump: “Get out and vote just this time. You won't have to do it anymore. Four more years it will be fixed. It'll be fine. You won't have to vote anymore…In four years you don't have to vote again. We'll have it fixed so good your not gonna have to vote.” pic.twitter.com/Ig91KpOeCl
— Republican Voters Against Trump (@AccountableGOP) July 27, 2024
“Christians, get out and vote. Just this time,” he said to thunderous applause. “You won’t have to do it anymore, four more years, you know what? It’ll be fixed, it’ll be fine, you won’t have to vote anymore, my beautiful Christians.”
As my colleague David Corn reported last year, Trump and his political allies have been sowing the seeds for a far-right autocracy for several years. Corn writes:
Trump’s desire to be a strongman ruler are no secret. He has repeatedly uttered statements that reveal a craving to be in total control of the US government. As he mounts a second campaign for the White House, his team has openly discussed his plans to consolidate government power in the White House should he win.
The New York Times recently reported that his crew aims “to alter the balance of power by increasing the president’s authority over every part of the federal government that now operates, by either law or tradition, with any measure of independence from political interference by the White House.”
So far, neither Trump nor his campaign have clarified the meaning behind his comments. But, taken at face value, they’re not a good sign for the future state of our democracy.
Login
(@ask_aubry) 